Terminal Evaluation - Strengthening Seychelles' Protected Area System through NGO Management Modalities

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2012-2016, Seychelles
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
06/2015
Completion Date:
03/2015
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
27,554

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TOR for PA terminal Evaluation.docx tor English 183.88 KB Posted 458
Download document TE Report for PA Project March 2015.docx report English 394.53 KB Posted 920
Download document Summary of conclusions and Recommendations for PA TE.docx summary English 38.41 KB Posted 478
Download document Signed Management Response for PA terminal Evaluation.pdf related-document English 1949.01 KB Posted 303
Title Terminal Evaluation - Strengthening Seychelles' Protected Area System through NGO Management Modalities
Atlas Project Number: 00076774
Evaluation Plan: 2012-2016, Seychelles
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 03/2015
Planned End Date: 06/2015
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 1.3. Solutions developed at national and sub-national levels for sustainable management of natural resources, ecosystem services, chemicals and waste
Evaluation Budget(US $): 27,554
Source of Funding: GEF
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Veronica Nyawira Muthui Ms nyawira.muthui@gmail.com KENYA
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title:
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-4
GEF Project ID: 3925
PIMS Number: 4190
Key Stakeholders: Government of Seychelles/UNDP
Countries: SEYCHELLES
Comments: New Evaluation added. submitted for approval
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 Project Implementation: The TE finds that despite a problematic start-up and implementation hiccups in the first two years, the project has exceeded delivery on 10 targets, fully delivered on 7 and delivered over 80% on the other 2. Using threat reduction as a measure of impacts, the project significantly reduced threats to biodiversity in Seychelles by; i. Direct protection ? via increasing PA estate by 5,677.1 hectares: of which 294.1 is Terrestrial PA. This is significant for Seychelles which has a total land surface of only 459 sq km (or 45,900 ha), of which 45.5% was already gazetted by 2010. Any additional area to the terrestrial PAs matter a great deal. ii. Once the new legislation is in place, the PA is likely to increase by a further 3,000 hectares upon gazettement of North and Dennis Islands, as well as the four Temporal PAs (2 for whale sharks and 2 for turtles). There is also a proposal to designate 11 new sites in inner and outer islands under the Outer Island Project, once the legislation is in place. This will bring the total PA estate to 150,000 in the next few years. Policy and legislation for PA expansion under multi-stakeholder (private sector) management: The approval of the new PA policy has far reaching impacts on strengthening the PA management into the future. The new policy forms the framework for more effective planning and management of PAs, and guides the expansion of the current PA system with the introduction of new categories of protected area in accordance with international criteria and international obligations. The real impact of the PA Policy is that it reinforces the commitment of Seychelles to manage 50% of its land area and up to 30% of its marine area as protected areas (including sustainable use zones). The PA Policy, additionally addresses co-management of PAs, a concept which is novel in the Seychelles, and strengthens the potential for private partnerships in PA management. Allowing private sector investments in PA is cost effective for a SIDS, which suffers HR and financial difficulties
2 Results: The TE finds that overall the results obtained by the project for US$ 2.1 million represent a very good return on capital, and that delivering a new PA policy in less than 4 years is exceptional. Four strategies adopted yielded efficiency gains, namely: i) involvement of NGOs in a partnership aimed at expanding the PA estate and improve the management effectiveness, even without the legal provisions being in place yet: ii) the use of, and composition of the Technical Working Group that led PA policy process: iii) the PCU as the coordinator of all the GEF projects in Seychelles; iv) the three tier project management modality adopted by UNDP is an efficient distribution of ?labour? and increased efficient use of resources in this project.
3 Sustainability: The TE finds that the impacts described above are likely to be sustained in future due to improved Management Effectiveness on all PAs and Islands, improved financial sustainability and improved systemic and individual and institutional capacities for PA management.
4 Institutional Arrangements: The PCU played a significant role in connecting the project to other GEF projects and development processes in the country, with significant gains in relevance, mainstreaming, replication and catalytic role; these generated further gains in cost effectiveness (both efficiency and effectiveness). However, absence of the PCU coordinator at the crucial start-up period weakened the project support to other entities at a time when many critical decisions were required, which the Project Manager alone could not take. Staff changes in the financial department of the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Finance often exacerbated the difficult financial flows of project funds. In addition, changes in staff in the PCU and the PM in 3 of the 4 ENGOs during the course of the caused delays in the submission of quarterly reports, causing additional delay in disbursement of funds for all partners. However, staff turn-over problems are not unusual for Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and there is no evidence that the turn-over problems experienced during the implementation of this project were greater than would be expected of SIDS.
5 Awareness raising: Active management of knowledge sharing improves chances of replication and catalytic character of a project. Knowledge management was however not included as an activity with a budget in this project. Although the MTE Management response reported knowledge sharing as organic in the project, a more systematic knowledge management would have improve cross-learning amongst the project partners.
6 Financial Planning: The TE finds that there were several problems with financial planning, primarily caused by delays in disbursements during the first two years. The delays seems to have been due to the following reasons: i) misunderstanding of the 80% rule: ii) the complex institutional arrangements around financial transfers: iii) frequency of requests for financial clearance. However, the project clearly overcame these difficulties in the later part of implementation to deliver very impressive achievements.
7 Analysis of METTs: There was evidence of inconsistencies in the filling out of the METT score cards, in particular for Cousin Island. It is not clear if the METT exercise is actually taken seriously at all in this case.
8 Projects targeting policy change should either be implemented over longer periods (e.g. six years) or limit the indicators to the actual contribution that use of project resources can be held accountable for (see addition to this lesson after the section on ?use of M&E and adaptive management?)
9 Replication is necessary for sustaining project impacts: however, for it to happen, projects need to actively link with other on-going processes, something that is often difficult when project teams are isolated and are too focused on tight deadlines. The presence of the PCU made a big difference in this project. They were able to link the project to other important GEF and national programs;
10 Active management of knowledge sharing improves chances of replication. Although knowledge sharing was, to some extent organic, providing knowledge sharing systems would have improved knowledge sharing and learning: however, when this is not factored in as an activity with a budget (as was the case for this project), it is likely to be downplayed. In the absence of such effort, the four sub-components were implemented as a disparate set of activities with limited cross-fertilization.
11 Seychelles is a Small Island Developing State ? and will always have Human Resources issues manifested in high staff turnover in many organizations. The planning stage should be used to formulate mitigation strategies to handle the inevitable human resources issues during implementation.
12 Mainstreaming lessons from other projects is a cost effective measure because it avoids duplication and waste. The choice of Implementing Partner with the necessary linkages to other conservation programmes, and the unique position of the PCU for GOS-UNDP-GEF projects in Seychelles played a key role in the excellent level of mainstreaming lessons demonstrated by this project.
13 The TE echoes the lesson highlighted by the MTE regarding operational matters in partnerships: setting up multi-stakeholder PA management regimes requires attention to trust, respect and equality for implementing partners. While putting in place neutral platforms for participatory decision making is important, the adage ?perception is the only reality? matters where capacities vary amongst the members of the partnership; there is need to find a more effective means of overcoming perceptions of un-equal power relations.
14 As a SIDS, all project partners need to develop more effective incentives for recruiting and retaining staff. Solving this issue is beyond this project, but it is definitely necessary for the country.
15 For projects being implemented through more than one institution, the possibility of several AWARDS in ATLAS should be considered, supported by a cost benefit analysis of the additional work occasioned by several AWARD numbers.
16 Similar to the replication issue, the diligence of the partners and the PCU in ensuring that the project is informed by, and informed other relevant process played a key role in ensuring that the project catalyzes other processes. A more systematic knowledge management process, that would have ensured that the various sub-components are implemented as parts of a whole (rather than a disparate set of activities) would have increased the catalytic character of this project significantly.
17 Formulate an exit strategy that explains how the legislation approval will be followed up and coordinated with the outputs of this project, to ensure sustainability of the impacts.
18 For future projects involving multiple partners(as the PA finance is likely to do), all efforts must be expended to avoid the single award, multiple implementers. HACT (harmonization for cash transfer) should be used so that funds transfer becomes simpler and more straightforward
19 The funds approval systems can be simplified by allowing the PCU to authorize all expenditures below US$ 25,000 against the normal contracts signed between the main implementer (government in this case) and the implementing partners). The important thing is to have robust contracts that would not allow abuse of resources. The current approval system puts too much burden on an already limited staffing situation. The significance of such a system is that 90% of the project expenditures fall within this range, suggesting significant efficiency gains.
20 By being at the centre of all the GEF projects in the country, the PCU played a critical role in linking the project to other GEF projects and to relevant development programs and processes in the country. This enabled two important things: i) it ensured that implementation of any specific project is closely coordinated with all relevant projects, for the benefit of both; ii) ensured that all project outputs and processes are known to, and taken into consideration by all relevant development processes. This has increased the cost effectiveness, relevance, replicability and catalytic role of this project considerably (compared to the situation without the PCU). Although it might be difficult to establish coordination units for GEF projects in all countries, there are significant benefits to be gained by having, at a minimum, a GEF coordinator in all UNDP Country Offices, paid for by small contributions from each of the projects. Such a mechanism would yield significant benefits especially in countries where the CO capacity is either weak or environment is not on the top agenda, or both ? e.g. South Africa?
21 Factor in knowledge management and sharing as an activity with a budget for similar projects. This will yield significant replicability and catalytic gains.
1. Recommendation: Project Implementation: The TE finds that despite a problematic start-up and implementation hiccups in the first two years, the project has exceeded delivery on 10 targets, fully delivered on 7 and delivered over 80% on the other 2. Using threat reduction as a measure of impacts, the project significantly reduced threats to biodiversity in Seychelles by; i. Direct protection ? via increasing PA estate by 5,677.1 hectares: of which 294.1 is Terrestrial PA. This is significant for Seychelles which has a total land surface of only 459 sq km (or 45,900 ha), of which 45.5% was already gazetted by 2010. Any additional area to the terrestrial PAs matter a great deal. ii. Once the new legislation is in place, the PA is likely to increase by a further 3,000 hectares upon gazettement of North and Dennis Islands, as well as the four Temporal PAs (2 for whale sharks and 2 for turtles). There is also a proposal to designate 11 new sites in inner and outer islands under the Outer Island Project, once the legislation is in place. This will bring the total PA estate to 150,000 in the next few years. Policy and legislation for PA expansion under multi-stakeholder (private sector) management: The approval of the new PA policy has far reaching impacts on strengthening the PA management into the future. The new policy forms the framework for more effective planning and management of PAs, and guides the expansion of the current PA system with the introduction of new categories of protected area in accordance with international criteria and international obligations. The real impact of the PA Policy is that it reinforces the commitment of Seychelles to manage 50% of its land area and up to 30% of its marine area as protected areas (including sustainable use zones). The PA Policy, additionally addresses co-management of PAs, a concept which is novel in the Seychelles, and strengthens the potential for private partnerships in PA management. Allowing private sector investments in PA is cost effective for a SIDS, which suffers HR and financial difficulties
Management Response: [Added: 2015/09/01] [Last Updated: 2015/09/01]

The management agrees that the project did face some issues in the first two years of implementation due to the number of NGOs and also as some modalities had to be reiterated to them over and over again. Delivery did speed up once NGOs learnt the process of reporting to UNDP norms, however, enabling a higher level of delivery over the subsequent years, although delivery of funds to NGOs once the funds had reached the Project Account at the Central Bank of Seychelles remained a problem throughout the project. This was mainly due to delays encountered in processing the disbursement into the individual NGOs account by the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Finance. This matter has also affected to a lesser degree the other GEF projects although remedial actions undertaken has reduced the delays considerably. UNDP country office organized at least 2 working sessions with all parties concerned when the problem was brought to our attention and solutions were found which allowed the project to proceed smoothly thereafter.. .

Key Actions:

2. Recommendation: Results: The TE finds that overall the results obtained by the project for US$ 2.1 million represent a very good return on capital, and that delivering a new PA policy in less than 4 years is exceptional. Four strategies adopted yielded efficiency gains, namely: i) involvement of NGOs in a partnership aimed at expanding the PA estate and improve the management effectiveness, even without the legal provisions being in place yet: ii) the use of, and composition of the Technical Working Group that led PA policy process: iii) the PCU as the coordinator of all the GEF projects in Seychelles; iv) the three tier project management modality adopted by UNDP is an efficient distribution of ?labour? and increased efficient use of resources in this project.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/09/01] [Last Updated: 2015/09/01]

In agreement with these findings.

Key Actions:

3. Recommendation: Sustainability: The TE finds that the impacts described above are likely to be sustained in future due to improved Management Effectiveness on all PAs and Islands, improved financial sustainability and improved systemic and individual and institutional capacities for PA management.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/09/01]

This project laid the ground work for several new projects including the expansion of the outer islands protected areas and provided technical guidance to the Government initiative for marine spatial mapping. Development of the Aldabra House concept through the sustainable financing mechanism component of the project is also being taken up in the new PA Finance GEF project being finalized for approval in June 2015. The uptake of project actions, long term impacts and sustainability of this project are viewed as highly satisfactory.

Key Actions:

4. Recommendation: Institutional Arrangements: The PCU played a significant role in connecting the project to other GEF projects and development processes in the country, with significant gains in relevance, mainstreaming, replication and catalytic role; these generated further gains in cost effectiveness (both efficiency and effectiveness). However, absence of the PCU coordinator at the crucial start-up period weakened the project support to other entities at a time when many critical decisions were required, which the Project Manager alone could not take. Staff changes in the financial department of the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Finance often exacerbated the difficult financial flows of project funds. In addition, changes in staff in the PCU and the PM in 3 of the 4 ENGOs during the course of the caused delays in the submission of quarterly reports, causing additional delay in disbursement of funds for all partners. However, staff turn-over problems are not unusual for Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and there is no evidence that the turn-over problems experienced during the implementation of this project were greater than would be expected of SIDS.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/09/01]

For 6 months, between October 2012 and May 2013, there was no Programme Coordinator at the PCU. Issues that needed intervention from the Government were handled but they were not timely. However since 2013, the PCU has been effectively playing its role through engaging the partners more effectively and ensuring that concerns are addressed quickly and efficiently. It is notable that the TE considers effectiveness as satisfactory and efficiency as highly satisfactory, which indicates clearly that the institutional arrangements work well. During that period of the absence of the Programme Coordinator, the UNDP Programme Manager had to increase oversight of the project to ensure that implementation was not greatly affected. However, this had its limits as operational matters and decision had to be taken by the Ministry of Environment and the new PS of Environment was relatively new to GEF matters and PCU operations. In future it would be advisable to have formal and documented handing over internally as well within the Implementing Agency.

Key Actions:

5. Recommendation: Awareness raising: Active management of knowledge sharing improves chances of replication and catalytic character of a project. Knowledge management was however not included as an activity with a budget in this project. Although the MTE Management response reported knowledge sharing as organic in the project, a more systematic knowledge management would have improve cross-learning amongst the project partners.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/09/01]

In agreement. Knowledge management has been picked up at the later stages of the project and dissemination of lessons learned has commenced (e.g. through the PCU website and through initiatives of the NGOs such as the SIF symposium in May 2015). PCU will undertake to continue with the knowledge management concept post project as well as part of the overall Awareness and Communication Strategy being developed for all PCU projects.

Key Actions:

6. Recommendation: Financial Planning: The TE finds that there were several problems with financial planning, primarily caused by delays in disbursements during the first two years. The delays seems to have been due to the following reasons: i) misunderstanding of the 80% rule: ii) the complex institutional arrangements around financial transfers: iii) frequency of requests for financial clearance. However, the project clearly overcame these difficulties in the later part of implementation to deliver very impressive achievements.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/09/01]

The process of financial clearing is one that is more complex and bureaucratic in nature with request for funds having to be cleared first by PCU then by the Department of Environment and finally by Ministry of Finance before it can be released by the Central Bank. This multi-layered channel often means that in the absence of key personnel payments are delayed in some instances more than 4-6 weeks. This issue has been raised frequently and discussed with Ministry of Finance (most recently discussed between the Ministers of MEECC and MOF in May 2015) but banking rules are such that the system is not likely to be changed. The response to this issue is explained above in Issue #1

Key Actions:

7. Recommendation: Analysis of METTs: There was evidence of inconsistencies in the filling out of the METT score cards, in particular for Cousin Island. It is not clear if the METT exercise is actually taken seriously at all in this case.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/09/01]

The preparation of METTs in the lead up to the PA Finance project in early 2015 emphasized to stakeholders the importance of proper attention to METTs ? specifically stakeholder engagement (multiple persons involved in the process) and attention to detail (proper thinking through of next steps, etc.). The issue with Nature Seychelles remains, however, as again there was poor attention to the METT for Cousin Island. This issue was raised at the time but a revision of the METT was not insisted upon. For future iterations PCU will need to insist on either proper attention to the process, or for PCU to lead the process rather than for Nature Seychelles to continue to conduct the METT analysis internally.

Key Actions:

8. Recommendation: Projects targeting policy change should either be implemented over longer periods (e.g. six years) or limit the indicators to the actual contribution that use of project resources can be held accountable for (see addition to this lesson after the section on ?use of M&E and adaptive management?)
Management Response: [Added: 2015/09/01]

In agreement with lesson learnt

Key Actions:

9. Recommendation: Replication is necessary for sustaining project impacts: however, for it to happen, projects need to actively link with other on-going processes, something that is often difficult when project teams are isolated and are too focused on tight deadlines. The presence of the PCU made a big difference in this project. They were able to link the project to other important GEF and national programs;
Management Response: [Added: 2015/09/01]

In agreement with lesson learnt- The PCU has been used as Best Practise for NIM of projects. Countries like Fiji have requested to learn from this set up and to replicate the same for their GEF projects

Key Actions:

10. Recommendation: Active management of knowledge sharing improves chances of replication. Although knowledge sharing was, to some extent organic, providing knowledge sharing systems would have improved knowledge sharing and learning: however, when this is not factored in as an activity with a budget (as was the case for this project), it is likely to be downplayed. In the absence of such effort, the four sub-components were implemented as a disparate set of activities with limited cross-fertilization.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/09/01]

Future projects will factor in an active component of knowledge sharing. There is often an issue particularly with NGOs where they may not want to share actual information until it is published, but sharing of good practices and processes is possible.

Key Actions:

11. Recommendation: Seychelles is a Small Island Developing State ? and will always have Human Resources issues manifested in high staff turnover in many organizations. The planning stage should be used to formulate mitigation strategies to handle the inevitable human resources issues during implementation.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/09/01]

The PCU has a good scheme of service aimed to ensure staff retention and to mitigate potentially high staff turnover. However, this policy has to fit within Government pay scales, which leaves the door open to staff being attracted away by higher salaries paid by e.g. international NGOs, or staff gaining the experience needed to qualify for international grants for higher education. Building linkages with the University of Seychelles to attract more students into the environment field, e.g. through internships, is one way to ensure that a pool of potential recruits is created. A further revision of the existing Salary Scheme for the PCU would help to retain and attract new staff.

Key Actions:

12. Recommendation: Mainstreaming lessons from other projects is a cost effective measure because it avoids duplication and waste. The choice of Implementing Partner with the necessary linkages to other conservation programmes, and the unique position of the PCU for GOS-UNDP-GEF projects in Seychelles played a key role in the excellent level of mainstreaming lessons demonstrated by this project.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/09/01]

In agreement with lesson learnt- The PCU has been used as Best Practise for NIM of projects.

Key Actions:

13. Recommendation: The TE echoes the lesson highlighted by the MTE regarding operational matters in partnerships: setting up multi-stakeholder PA management regimes requires attention to trust, respect and equality for implementing partners. While putting in place neutral platforms for participatory decision making is important, the adage ?perception is the only reality? matters where capacities vary amongst the members of the partnership; there is need to find a more effective means of overcoming perceptions of un-equal power relations.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/09/01]

PCU is aware of this long-standing issue and tries to engage stakeholders on an equal footing. However, trust and respect has to come from both sides, and (fortunately just a few) partners have a history of antagonism towards Government oversight of their activities, although in many cases relying on GEF projects for funds. PCU will continue to try to engage problematic partners in all activities and seek ways to ensure that they are fully involved and benefit fairly under the new GEF-6 programming and implementation.

Key Actions:

14. Recommendation: As a SIDS, all project partners need to develop more effective incentives for recruiting and retaining staff. Solving this issue is beyond this project, but it is definitely necessary for the country.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/09/01] [Last Updated: 2015/09/01]

In addition to response in #11, Government is well aware of this issue, and is looking for means to attract returning graduates in particular into the environment field.

Key Actions:

15. Recommendation: For projects being implemented through more than one institution, the possibility of several AWARDS in ATLAS should be considered, supported by a cost benefit analysis of the additional work occasioned by several AWARD numbers.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/09/01]

Although this recommendation is sound it is not feasible in ATLAS. Multiple award numbers will require individual PRODOCs and more stringent reporting requirements which may become problematic.

Key Actions:

16. Recommendation: Similar to the replication issue, the diligence of the partners and the PCU in ensuring that the project is informed by, and informed other relevant process played a key role in ensuring that the project catalyzes other processes. A more systematic knowledge management process, that would have ensured that the various sub-components are implemented as parts of a whole (rather than a disparate set of activities) would have increased the catalytic character of this project significantly.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/09/01]

See response as per #10

Key Actions:

17. Recommendation: Formulate an exit strategy that explains how the legislation approval will be followed up and coordinated with the outputs of this project, to ensure sustainability of the impacts.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/09/01]

In agreement with the Recommendation

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The process of taking forward the approval of legislation now resides with the Office of the Minster of MEECC, the project having provided the necessary inputs to start the Government-led approval process.
[Added: 2015/09/01] [Last Updated: 2016/01/13]
Minister?s Office and AG?s office PA management agencies (some support for this provided by the PA Finance project) No due date No deadline established The upcoming PA Finance project will ensure continuity in this regard. This is now integrated in the workplan of MEECC and will be taken up by the Miistry as the project is closed
18. Recommendation: For future projects involving multiple partners(as the PA finance is likely to do), all efforts must be expended to avoid the single award, multiple implementers. HACT (harmonization for cash transfer) should be used so that funds transfer becomes simpler and more straightforward
Management Response: [Added: 2015/09/01]

The above recommendation is noted and it will require a change in GEF Policy of 1 award and 1 Project.

Key Actions:

19. Recommendation: The funds approval systems can be simplified by allowing the PCU to authorize all expenditures below US$ 25,000 against the normal contracts signed between the main implementer (government in this case) and the implementing partners). The important thing is to have robust contracts that would not allow abuse of resources. The current approval system puts too much burden on an already limited staffing situation. The significance of such a system is that 90% of the project expenditures fall within this range, suggesting significant efficiency gains.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/09/01]

In agreement with the recommendation. The Aide Memoire has been revised to increase the level od delegated authority of the PCU but it is still awaiting feedback from Ministry of Finance and for approval by the GEF Operational Focal Point

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
A revised Aide Memoire between Government and UNDP has been prepared and is awaiting approval of MEECC and MOF. This gives a higher level of financial autonomy to PCU (up to US$ 5,000). The suggested level of US$ 25,000 is probably not practical under GOS banking rules. PCU contracts will as far as possible be made in SCR and involve output-linked payments falling below the $5,000 limit such that once the contracts are approved by MEECC PCU can handle payments internally. This will not work in the case of payments to responsible partners, however, which in most cases will be more than $5,000 per quarter, such that the issue in delayed payments to project partners will remain.
[Added: 2015/09/01]
MEECC, PCU, MOFTBE No due date No deadline established The revised Aide Memoire is awaiting signatures from MOFTBE and likely to be done by late 2015
20. Recommendation: By being at the centre of all the GEF projects in the country, the PCU played a critical role in linking the project to other GEF projects and to relevant development programs and processes in the country. This enabled two important things: i) it ensured that implementation of any specific project is closely coordinated with all relevant projects, for the benefit of both; ii) ensured that all project outputs and processes are known to, and taken into consideration by all relevant development processes. This has increased the cost effectiveness, relevance, replicability and catalytic role of this project considerably (compared to the situation without the PCU). Although it might be difficult to establish coordination units for GEF projects in all countries, there are significant benefits to be gained by having, at a minimum, a GEF coordinator in all UNDP Country Offices, paid for by small contributions from each of the projects. Such a mechanism would yield significant benefits especially in countries where the CO capacity is either weak or environment is not on the top agenda, or both ? e.g. South Africa?
Management Response: [Added: 2015/09/01]

In agreement with the recommendation. UNDP Seychelles and PCU is already sharing the experiences with other country offices.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
This recommendation is directed at the regional UNDP and GEF offices.
[Added: 2015/09/01]
UNDP RSC, GEF Secretariat No due date No deadline established
21. Recommendation: Factor in knowledge management and sharing as an activity with a budget for similar projects. This will yield significant replicability and catalytic gains.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/09/01]

Agree and will be acted upon for new projects being developed. The Communications Officer will be tasked to coordinate the dissemination and codification or knowledge products as far as practical, with inputs from the respective PMs for each of the projects.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
GOS and UNDP will endeavour to include a specific financed element within future GEF projects to cover knowledge management (as indeed has already been included in some projects, such as the Biosecurity project 2008-2014).
[Added: 2015/09/01]
PCU, UNDP CO No due date No deadline established

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org